22-592-cv
`The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. v. Goodman
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`SUMMARY ORDER
`
`RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
`ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
`APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
`ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
`APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
`CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
`COUNSEL.
`
`
`
`
`At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
`Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
`the City of New York, on the 14th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
`
`PRESENT:
`
`
`ROSEMARY S. POOLER
`RICHARD C. WESLEY,
`MICHAEL H. PARK,
`Circuit Judges.
`_____________________________________
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`The National Academy of Television Arts and
`Sciences, Inc., Academy of Television Arts &
`Sciences,
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`v.
`
`Jason Goodman,
`
`
`Counter-Claimant-Counter-
`Defendant-Appellant.*
`
`22-592
`
`
`
`
`
`* The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.
`
`
`The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. v. Goodman
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`SUMMARY ORDER
`
`RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
`ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
`APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
`ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
`APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
`CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
`COUNSEL.
`
`
`
`
`At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
`Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
`the City of New York, on the 14th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
`
`PRESENT:
`
`
`ROSEMARY S. POOLER
`RICHARD C. WESLEY,
`MICHAEL H. PARK,
`Circuit Judges.
`_____________________________________
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`The National Academy of Television Arts and
`Sciences, Inc., Academy of Television Arts &
`Sciences,
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`v.
`
`Jason Goodman,
`
`
`Counter-Claimant-Counter-
`Defendant-Appellant.*
`
`22-592
`
`
`
`
`
`* The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`_____________________________________
`
`
`FOR GOODMAN:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason Goodman, pro se, New York, NY.
`
`Margaret A. Esquenet , B. Brett
`Heavner, Mary Kate Brennan, Finnegan,
`Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
`LLP, Washington, DC.
`
`D. George Sweigert, pro se, Box Elder,
`SD.
`
`
`FOR THE ACADEMIES:
`
`
`FOR AMICUS CURIAE:
`
`
`
`Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
`
`District of New York (Caproni, J.).
`
`UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
`
`AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and the motion to
`
`strike is DENIED as moot.
`
`Appellant Jason Goodman, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
`
`sanctions order against him and denial of his motion to intervene. Appellees, the
`
`Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and the National Academy of Television Arts and
`
`Sciences, Inc. (together, the “Academies”), brought a copyright- and trademark-
`
`infringement suit against Multimedia System Design, Inc. (“MSD”). Goodman, the sole
`
`owner and employee of MSD, sought to intervene on his own behalf. The district court
`
`denied that motion and imposed sanctions on Goodman for willfully violating a
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`protective order by exposing a confidential email address. We assume the parties’
`
`familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
`
`appeal.
`
`Pro se filings are liberally construed “to raise the strongest arguments they
`
`suggest.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017).
`
`I.
`
`Sanctions
`
`We review sanctions orders for abuse of discretion. Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc.
`
`v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2009). “Imposition of sanctions under a court’s
`
`inherent powers requires a specific finding that an attorney [or party] acted in bad faith”
`
`and is “appropriate only if there is clear evidence that the conduct at issue is (1) entirely
`
`without color and (2) motivated by improper purposes.” Id. at 114. Conduct is
`
`“entirely without color when it lacks any legal or factual basis.” Id. “A finding of bad
`
`faith, and a finding that conduct is without color or for an improper purpose, must be
`
`supported by a high degree of specificity in the factual findings.” Id.
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering sanctions based on its
`
`finding that Goodman acted in bad faith. Goodman knew of the protective order
`
`prohibiting disclosure of confidential discovery material, understood that the
`
`confidential email address was protected by that order, and decided to reveal the email
`
`address anyway. The court determined that “Goodman’s violation of the Protective
`
`Order was done willfully, with no legitimate purpose, to satisfy Mr. Goodman’s desire
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`to prove that Mr. Sweigert was behind the confidential email address,” and Goodman
`
`willfully disregarded the authority of the district court in establishing a protective order.
`
`Order at 5–6 , Nat’l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis., Inc., No. 20-cv-7269 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22,
`
`2022), ECF No. 156. Indeed, Goodman made clear that he understood his behavior could
`
`have led to sanctions for an attorney but assumed he was protected from reprisal because
`
`he was neither a pro se litigant nor represented by counsel. See Letter exhibit A at 2,
`
`Nat’l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis., Inc., No. 20-cv-7269 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2021), ECF No.
`
`113-1 (“Now that I don’t have an attorney whatever I do my attorney can’t get sanctioned
`
`and I’m not even Pro Se so they could just yell at me and tell me not to do it again.”).
`
`Moreover, at a show-cause hearing on the matter, the court rejected Goodman’s claim
`
`that he did not realize the email address was subject to the protective order, specifically
`
`finding that this explanation for his conduct was not credible. We afford the district
`
`court’s credibility determinations significant deference, see United States v. Iodice, 525 F.3d
`
`179, 185 (2d Cir. 2008), and the record fully supports the district court’s assessment of
`
`Goodman’s bad faith.
`
`Furthermore, the requirement to notify other courts of the order against Goodman
`
`is not a particularly onerous sanction. “A district court may, in its discretion, impose
`
`sanctions against litigants who abuse the judicial process,” including “an injunction
`
`forbidding further litigation.” Shafii v. Brit. Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996).
`
`Goodman has engaged in many lawsuits with Sweigert, including at least six others that
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`have reached this Court. See 2d Cir. 21-78, 21-2005, 21-3101, 22-40, 22-682, 22-1414. The
`
`district court’s order is limited to two years and serves only to notify other courts that
`
`Goodman has previously violated a protective order. The order did not bar Goodman
`
`from further litigation and so was less of an imposition than a filing injunction. Cf. Shafii,
`
`83 F.3d at 571. And we have approved similar orders against attorneys who have been
`
`sanctioned. See Gallop v. Cheney, 667 F.3d 226, 230-31 (2d Cir. 2012).
`
`II.
`
`Intervention
`
`“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to intervene for abuse of
`
`discretion.” In re Bank of N.Y. Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d 291, 299 (2d Cir. 2003). First, to
`
`intervene as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), an applicant must “(1) timely
`
`file an application, (2) show an interest in the action, (3) demonstrate that the interest may
`
`be impaired by the disposition of the action, and (4) show that the interest is not protected
`
`adequately by the parties to the action.” Id. at 300. (cleaned up). “Failure to satisfy any
`
`one of these requirements is a sufficient ground to deny the application.” Id. (cleaned
`
`up).
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Goodman’s motion
`
`to intervene as of right was untimely, as it was filed a year and a half into the litigation
`
`and only after Goodman realized MSD was at risk of a default judgment. Furthermore,
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`Goodman was the sole owner and employee of MSD, suggesting that his interests were
`
`fully represented in the suit.
`
`Second, as to permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P 24(b), the district court
`
`has “broad discretion” to deny such an application. N.Y. News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d
`
`482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
`
`motion to intervene because Goodman filed a separate suit in which he sued Sharp, the
`
`Academies, attorneys for the Academies, and others. Goodman thus had a full
`
`opportunity for his claims to be heard before a court. Goodman’s interests have also
`
`been represented on appeal by MSD.
`
`We have considered all of Goodman’s remaining arguments and find them to be
`
`without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Because
`
`we affirm the judgment, we DENY the Academies’ motion to strike as moot.1
`
`FOR THE COURT:
`Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The contested Appendix did not factor into our consideration of this appeal.
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
